"In summary, we contend in Part I that abstract ideas are not patentable when they involve no substantial physical transformation. In Part II, we explain that insubstantial physical transformations, such as running a software-implemented algorithm on a computer, should be deemed insufficient to come within Section 101..."

This brief argues that the idea in question is an abstract idea. It can be implemented in software, but it is still abstract. The USA's Constitutional protection of free speech (the "First Amendment") protects the right to talk about "abstract ideas", and thus this patent conflicts with the First Amendment, or at least gives insufficient "breathing room" for the First Amendment to be usable.